Is "se cambiaron" correct form? That looks wrong, too, to me. And I think I would have expected "de los actuales" rather than "por los actuales", but that could really be showing my inferior knowledge of Spanish grammar.

Another point is that the 'ra' form and NOT the 'se' form of the subjunctive can be used stylistically in formal Spanish. The trouble is, it is rare or very literary with verbs and auxiliaries other than 'haber', 'deber', 'querer', 'poder'. It is especially common with 'haber'.

It would have been terribleHabría / hubiera sido terrible

c) The reason 'haber' is the most common auxiliary that uses the past subjunctive form in the main clause, is that 'haber' is necessary for the third conditional (3):

'If I had watched that programme, I would have known that'.-'Si hubiera / hubiese visto este programa, habría / hubiera sabido eso' (so here, contrary to (a) we can have past subjunctive in each clause. (This is usually accepted as good Spanish though with the restriction to the aforementioned verbs.)

The '-se' form is as perfectly intelligible to me as the '-ra' form. It just sounds archaic ("church words") to me like the 'vosotros' form, which I immediately understand, but never got used to using.

Apo

'Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination.' -Max Planck

Summary in English According to studies carried out so far, the Uruguayan variety of Spanish has experienced a change in the norm regarding the use of the allomorphs of the subjunctive preterit: from an initial preponderance of cantase in the 18th century, the change has developed the present situation, where cantara is the prevalent form. This study analyzes the alternation between cantara and cantase during the first part of the 19th century, to verify if the mentioned change starts in this period. However, results show a similar situation to that of the before century. Besides, non-synonymous uses of cantara and cantase have been also analyzed, in order to establish the norm about the use of these verbal forms in 19th century Uruguayan Spanish

Well, Sitran, I guess you're too used to Seville and Latin American Spanish... Let me give an explanation to this text.

First of all, the concordance is definately wrong, that's for sure. "Lo" should replace "la", no question there...

Nonetheless, the rest is good Spanish. There is something widely used when narrating (important) events called "Presente Histórico". Logically there could be no better place to employ it than a piece of historical information. It brings the audience closer to the deed, which is very appropriate. Now that I think of it, I wouldn't dare using it in English... But, no doubt, it's perfect Spanish, no need to change it, actually.

As to the hubiera/hubiese thing, well, in Spain you constantly hear both of them, as perfect synonyms except in the cases you mention ("hubiese" is not valid for the non-if clause), although I detect a tendence not to repeat the tenses. It looks nicer to us, I think: "Si hubiese sabido que no ibas a venir, me habría quedado y hubiera hecho mis deberes".

I thought of the historical present tense narrative, but really, it is as dead as the "truisms" you espouse.

I don't think so. It's alive and kicking. By the way, I agree with everything that Wondering Spaniard said. Hubiese doesn't sound good in the non-if clause, although some writers have made this "mistake". And I also think varying from hubiese and hubiera on one side and hubiera and habría on the other is a nice stylistical tool.

tcward wrote:...And I think I would have expected "de los actuales" rather than "por los actuales"...

Is no one man enough to explain my complete mistake here? I started to post something about it this morning -- actually, I did post it and deleted it after the fact.

It's been so long since I used Spanish conversationally, in my mind the latter examples (with the 'c' added) were the earlier forms of the words. (...well, you know, in Italian they moved away from the integral 'c'... so I wasn't completely out of my gourd. Yeah, right.)

I guess I'll take your word that the change to the preterite in the third verb is a "welcome" stylistic effect, but I would like some other examples. I know that if I made this "welcome" stylistic effect while using the "presente histórico" that it would be evidence of my ignorance of Spanish.

About the "-se" ending of the past subjunctive:

Although, as I have said, I readily understand it, but I had never really thought about it, because I don't actively use it.It is interesting to know that it should only be used in the "if" clause, and I was trying to get to the bottom of the "why" for this. I did know that the "-ra" ending can replace the conditional. I often use this in informal speech.

I must confess that this use of tenses looks odd to me, "Si hubiese sabido que no ibas a venir, me habría quedado y hubiera hecho mis deberes". I'll have to take your word for it, WS.

Very interesting! Thanks BD and WS!

But what looks odd to you, BD, in the second example?

There's a tense here that looks odd to me.

What tense were you talking about?

Apo

Last edited by Apoclima on Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

'Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination.' -Max Planck

I was searching for something like this on the Spanish historical present, but perhaps someone else will have more luck with that.

I did find this about English:

History Papers. Conversely, past-tense verbs should dominate history papers because the vividness of the present tense pertains less to the discussion of history than it does to literature. While it's possible to describe the historical past in the present tense, such a posture belongs more naturally to casual conversation than formal writing.

The problem with "right here right now" in writing assignments for a history class is the writer doesn't have to engage the reader in the story. The writing has the reader's full and undivided attention at all times, because I'm the reader and I'm totally involved—I guarantee it!—in whatever you have to say. Nor do you need to encourage me to see the past vividly. I do that naturally, because it's my job and I love it. So, for your writing assignments in a history course, please don't use the present tense, when describing the past. Use the past tense, instead.

Mixing Past Tenses and Present Tenses. Including present-tense verbs in historical, academic prose can also lead to trouble when, as is inevitable, you must at some point revert to past-tense verbs. Here's what it sounds like when you mix present and past tenses:

Almost every year of his reign Charlemagne is forced to go and vanquish the Saxons again and has to re-Christianize them on the spot. It was a serious problem and he never completely resolved it.

If your paper is part of a historical study and you must by definition spend the majority of your time in the past tense, it's best just to stay there as much as possible. Whatever you do, try not to flip back and forth between past and present verb forms.